Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Conspiracy Theories
 Bishop in Africa claims condoms contain HIV
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Previous Page | Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 3

Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie

USA
4826 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2007 :  17:48:12   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Valiant Dancer's Homepage Send Valiant Dancer a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse

It is true that there is a great difference in the transfer rate between homosexual males and heterosexual women, but that doesn't negate the problem that there is a wide spread problem.
If all homosexual males in Africa suddenly disappeared, there would still be a serious problem, and HIV would still continue to spread. They may have been the ones getting the snowball rolling, but now it's been rolling a while and is picking up speed, fueled by this idiot bishop.



Never said it wasn't a wide spread problem. marf made a statement about HIV which did not logically follow her data. She claimed victimology of a specific subsection of Africans and portrayed it as the majority.

I'm refuting that religion and sexuality are material to the spread of infectious disease.

Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils

Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2007 :  18:14:35   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
marf made a statement about HIV which did not logically follow her data.
Which statement was that?
She claimed victimology of a specific subsection of Africans and portrayed it as the majority.
Um, if by "specific subsection" you mean women, it might be because they are.
[In Africa] women are increasingly becoming the biggest victims, with 13 infected women for every 10 infected men (up from 12 in 2002). That difference is even more pronounced among 15 to 24-year-olds. In Kenya and Mali, there are 45 women living with HIV from this age group for every 10 men living with the virus.

You continue:
I'm refuting that religion and sexuality are material to the spread of infectious disease.
You are? How? You said...
Religion is not a factor in these except for any prohibitions against barrier type birth control methods between heterosexual couples. Claims of religious protection against the disease are likewise absurd. Germs and viruses are not religious.
...clearly acknowledging that religious superstition and anti-condom programs are hugely material to the spread of infectious disease in Africa. How can you then jump to the conclusion that religion isn't material? You also said...
And neither of these groups have the same infection risk as male homosexual sex.
...so I don't see how you are saying sexuality isn't a factor. Perhaps you could explain?


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Edited by - H. Humbert on 10/25/2007 21:04:52
Go to Top of Page

Dave W.
Info Junkie

USA
26020 Posts

Posted - 10/25/2007 :  20:23:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit Dave W.'s Homepage Send Dave W. a Private Message  Reply with Quote
If about 5% of the population are male homosexuals (a high estimate), then Botswana's 35% infection rate (see H.'s link) means that at least 86% of the infected population are not male homosexuals (since they could account for at most 14% of the infections - if every last one of them was infected). So much for the "butt sex" theory of African HIV/AIDS.

According to Wikipedia,
The majority of HIV infections are acquired through unprotected sexual relations between partners, one of whom has HIV. Heterosexual intercourse is the primary mode of HIV infection worldwide.
and
Approximately 30% of women in ten countries representing "diverse cultural, geographical and urban/rural settings" report that their first sexual experience was forced or coerced, making sexual violence a key driver of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. Sexual assault greatly increases the risk of HIV transmission as protection is rarely employed and physical trauma to the vaginal cavity frequently occurs which facilitates the transmission of HIV.
and also
Many religious groups, most noticeably the Roman Catholic Church, have opposed the use of condoms on religious grounds, and have sometimes seen condom promotion as an affront to the promotion of marriage, monogamy and sexual morality. Defenders of the Catholic Church's role in AIDS and general STD prevention state that, while they may be against the use of contraception, they are strong advocates of abstinence outside marriage. This attitude is also found among some health care providers and policy makers in sub-Saharan African nations, where HIV and AIDS prevalence is extremely high. They also believe that the distribution and promotion of condoms is tantamount to promoting sex amongst the youth and sending the wrong message to uninfected individuals.

- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 10/26/2007 :  03:58:04   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Valiant Dancer wrote:
Sigh.

And neither of these groups have the same infection risk as male homosexual sex.

When the methodology of that sex is examined, people who engage in anal sex are at a higher risk for transmitting the disease than all others due to the nature of the act. Anal penetration (gender irrelevant) is a high risk sexual act as the reciever is prone to tearing and the perpensity of condom failures from this activity.

This is not a rant against homosexuality, rather an analysis of the risk factors in HIV transmission.
I understand this, but homosexual people are such a minority that obviously unprotected anal sex isn't the most prevalent cause of the spread of HIV in Africa. Sure it is a factor, but since it isn't the major one and OFFC only mentioned anal sex, and in a rather vulgar manner, I took it as him singling out homosexual sex. That is what I was responding to.

marf made a statement about HIV which did not logically follow her data. She claimed victimology of a specific subsection of Africans and portrayed it as the majority.
I said that "many if not most of the people in Africa with HIV or AIDS are heterosexual Christian women who are faithful to their husbands, you bigoted jerk." I did make a mistake and had meant to type South Africa because the religion stats I cited from Wiki were from that country specifically. Also, I wrote "many if not most". So I did not claim a majority. I suggested that given the data I had so far, they might be a majority. Are you saying it was false of me to say there are many Christian women in South Africa who haven't committed consentual sex out of wedlock but who have none-the-less contracted HIV?

Dr. Mabuse wrote:
They may have been the ones getting the snowball rolling, but now it's been rolling a while and is picking up speed, fueled by this idiot bishop.
Getting the HIV ball rolling probably had nothing to do with either homosexuality or sex: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIDS_origin
The most widely accepted theory is so called 'Hunter' Theory according to which transference from ape to human most likely occurred when a human was bitten by an ape or was cut while butchering one, and the human became infected.
Quite the reverse – once the disease entered human populations and was an unknown disease, it disproportionately affected homosexual men because of the higher risk of transfer with anal sex.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 10/26/2007 03:58:45
Go to Top of Page

On fire for Christ
SFN Regular

Norway
1273 Posts

Posted - 10/26/2007 :  05:35:56   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send On fire for Christ a Private Message  Reply with Quote
whats wrong with the term 'butt-fucking'?

Go to Top of Page

chaloobi
SFN Regular

1620 Posts

Posted - 10/26/2007 :  06:02:14   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Send chaloobi a Yahoo! Message Send chaloobi a Private Message  Reply with Quote
It's vulgar and crude?

-Chaloobi

Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 10/26/2007 :  06:08:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
OFFC wrote:
whats wrong with the term 'butt-fucking'?
All by itself there is nothing wrong with that term. Context is everything. To use a vulgar term that also singles out a particular group of people (gay men) in a discussion about HIV and AIDS in Africa is in poor taste to the say the least. Given your user name and your stated intention in your profile to convert people on SFF to your version of Christianity, it also harkens back to the idiotic, cruel, and bigoted claims in the 1980's by people like Jerry Falwell that AIDS was punishment from God for homosexual acts.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 10/26/2007 :  08:33:36   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
OFFC says:
of course, it's the condoms, nothing to do with all the butt-fucking

and Marfknox answers:
In short, many if not most of the people in Africa with HIV or AIDS are heterosexual Christian women who are faithful to their husbands, you bigoted jerk.


Now, really! Is insult the way to maintain a productive, high level of discourse on any subject? Why was insult necessary in the above response? I commend OFFC for turning the other cheek! Very Christ-like!

Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 10/26/2007 :  08:59:50   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
bngbuck wrote:
Now, really! Is insult the way to maintain a productive, high level of discourse on any subject? Why was insult necessary in the above response? I commend OFFC for turning the other cheek! Very Christ-like!
I'm not a Christian so I don't want to be Christ-like (self sacrifice ain't really my thing). Why should I care where you draw the line of civility? That is a subjective thing. Since you are not a moderator your scolding is nothing more than a change of subject.

edited for typos.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 10/26/2007 10:12:27
Go to Top of Page

H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard

USA
4574 Posts

Posted - 10/26/2007 :  09:21:13   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send H. Humbert a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by bngbuck
Now, really! Is insult the way to maintain a productive, high level of discourse on any subject? Why was insult necessary in the above response? I commend OFFC for turning the other cheek! Very Christ-like!
Except it wasn't an empty insult, it was calling a poster on their overtly bigoted behavior. You commend OFFC for turning the other cheek? He wouldn't have had to if he didn't make the first blow. Reducing homosexuals to "butt fuckers" was extremely un-Christlike. So I find you assessment of this exchange wrong in every respect, and I commend Marf for her honesty and integrity in standing up to bigotry when she sees it. And with facts, no less! Very skeptic-like of her, a much higher compliment in my book.


"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman

"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 10/26/2007 :  12:51:58   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Marf.....

I'm not a Christian so I don't want to be Christ-like
Well, seeing as how I am a practicing, evangelical, Witness For Jeezus, god damn it!, it's no wonder we can't get along!
Since you are not a moderator your scolding is nothing more than a change of subject.
Seriously, Marf, I had no more intent to change the subject than you did with this:
Ding, dong, the gnome is dead! *happy dance*
I am not pretending to be a moderator, I am expressing my opinion that the level of hostility on the forums here at SFN could be decreased if unnecessary insult was not used. I intend to answer Humbert on that issue next!

Back to topic, I happen to agree with Chaloobi that "butt-fucking" is vulgar and crude, except when in a humorous context. And who is to define "poor taste"? I understand that your offense to the conflation of vulgarity, homosexuality, and AIDS is one of your many opinions and you are certainly entitled to it. I don't feel it is necessarily shared by all and that such implication is overstatement. Simply my opinion.
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 10/26/2007 :  14:40:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Humbert.....

Except it wasn't an empty insult, it was calling a poster on their overtly bigoted behavior. You commend OFFC for turning the other cheek? He wouldn't have had to if he didn't make the first blow. Reducing homosexuals to "butt fuckers" was extremely un-Christlike. So I find you assessment of this exchange wrong in every respect, and I commend Marf for her honesty and integrity in standing up to bigotry when she sees it. And with facts, no less! Very skeptic-like of her, a much higher compliment in my book.

Well, I appreciate your opening your book to me! Unfortunately, I don't understand what I read.

What, in your book, is the qualitative difference between an "empty" insult and whatever you perceive as a proper or defensible insult?

I understand that OFFC was very likely insulting a group of folks in Africa, and needed to be called on it -- IF an eye for an eye is always in order!

Until recently, I would have said that the more the merrier. Personally, I love that kind of thing. I'm pretty good at it and I've met several here that are better than I am. But I have understood from some recent events here at SFN that the Powers That Be would prefer that the level of hostility be a little lower than it has been in the past. My personal dislike has more to do with the mindless and juvenile use of profanity and obscenity for it's own sake.

But there is something to be said for everyone just applying the insult brake a little when things start going fast and furious - (you mother-butt-fucking puppy raper! for example) - and reaching into their vocabulary to find a kinder, gentler way of expressing their point!

I, also, think that OFFC's comment was not very Christ-like. I intended my "commend" remark to be ironic. Obviously, you didn't get it.

Which raises a possible answer to the problem of how to insult when you just can't help yourself, and still stay within the Rules of Rome. Recently, I have been trying to be subtle enough that my barb is not perceived as an insult! That way, as the gekko would say, nobody looks foolish!

Marf is indeed very honest and possesses high integrity. My opinion is that her calling OFFC a "bigoted jerk", was not necessary to convey her point. He may well be bigoted, "jerk" is both highly subjective and always perjorative. It might have been better to say "your statement looks bigoted to me".

Without the present perceived rules of behavior here, a childish response would have been to have to have called OFFC a hypocritical, ignorant, fundamentalist, bigoted, jerk-off who should get the hell home to play with himself and his bible, rather than coming out and annoying the big kids in the forum here by exposing himself!

However, to do something like that now would not only be in flat defiance of the rules, it would be highly disruptive of the thought progression in the thread. Better to use a touch of irony complimenting a professed Christian for turning the other cheek when he speaks of "butt-fucking"

Comprende?
Go to Top of Page

Dude
SFN Die Hard

USA
6891 Posts

Posted - 10/26/2007 :  21:06:08   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Dude a Private Message  Reply with Quote
bngbuck said:
Until recently, I would have said that the more the merrier. Personally, I love that kind of thing. I'm pretty good at it and I've met several here that are better than I am.


No insult intended, but those lines could have been worded differently in a thread that has devolved into a conversation about "butt-fucking"!

No, I know, you were talking about something entirely different... but those sentences made me laugh out loud when I read them.


Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson

"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin

Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 10/27/2007 :  00:19:33   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Dude.....

I'm glad that I could entertain. There are so many threads, so little time! Could you refer me to the thread in question?

"LOL" is good, no matter what the provocation!
Go to Top of Page

bngbuck
SFN Addict

USA
2437 Posts

Posted - 10/27/2007 :  00:25:29   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send bngbuck a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Thanks, Dude, but get in line please! I really try to be fair and balanced! Other cheek, and all that!
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 3 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Previous Page | Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.3 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000